F 1234 
.W72 
Copy 1 



ao 



THE MENACE OF MEXICO 



Remarks before the League of Free Nations Association, 
December 20, 1919, New York City. 



By 



IRA JEWELL WILLIAMS 

Philadelphia, Pa. 



"The Utopia alike of Trotsky and Carranza is a despo- 
tism of force under the guise of a great popular reform." 



7V2 34- 



The Menace of Mexico 

The normal state of Mexico is revolution and internal strife. 

Before Diaz there were 57 revolutions in 57 years. 

So-called Mexican "concessions" are merely charters. 

Many Carranzista soldiers are convicts and even murderers. 

Americans in the oil regions gave true patriotic service "that tlie 
flag of freedom might still float; on the seven seas and that justice 
might not perish from the earth." 

There is no record of any German kUIed in Mexico during Carranza's 
time nor is there any record of justice heing meted out to any 
murderer of an American during Carranza's time. 

Carranza was and is rabidly pro-German. 

"Bandit" is a word of wide signiBcance in Mexico, where it means 
any one who by force is expressing disapproval of the Carranza 
regime. 

Carranza does not want to restore order because it means the end 
of his personal power. 

No survey of Mexico would be complete which omitted a word about 
Bolshevism. 

The Utopia alike of Trotzky and Carranza is a depotism of force 
under the guise of a great popular reform. 

America doies not desire, and will never take one inch of territory 
from Mexico. 












5 THE MENACE OF MEXICO. 

^H An American ambassador recently addressed an audience 

on the subject of the country to which he was accredited. 
He apologized afterwards for the extreme dullness of the 
talk, saying that he wanted to go back, and that if he told 
all the facts and the interesting facts, he could not go back. 
I will not mention the name of the ambassador or the coun- 
try to which he was accredited. But I find myself in some- 
what similar case in respect of the country of Mexico. I 
have been to Mexico, and I want to go back to Mexico, 
but more important than going back to Mexico, after I 
have gone back to Mexico I want to come back from 
Mexico, and not in a coffin! 

When in the city of Mexico recently I asked the repre- 
sentative of another nation whether he thought I was quite 
safe so far as Carranza and his adherents were concerned, 
in view of certain more or less outspoken utterances giving 
facts tending to show that Carranza was pro-German, anti- 
foreign, anti- American, anti-religious, and inclined to red 
radicalism. This gentleman's reply was not especially re- 
assuring. He said that one of several things might 
happen. First, I might be "thirty-threed." Article 33 of 
the new Carranza Constitution provides that any foreigner 
whom the executive deems pernicious to the welfare of the 
country may be deported without further ado. The cus- 
tomary method pursued was to arrest the gentleman in ques- 
tion, frequently an American, to handcuff him and send 
him to the calaboose, an indescribably filthy place, whence 
he was escorted under guard to the train and sent to the 
border. These attendant refinements of insult have, I am 
told, been omitted of late by request of our diplomatic rep- 

3 



resentative, but Article 33 remains in full force and vigor. 
In the last year there have been seventy-two naturalizations 
in Mexico; on the other hand, sixty-six were complimented 
by receiving the "thirty-third" degree. 

There are a number of mistaken viewpoints of the Mexi- 
can problem. For example, one intelligent gentleman said 
to me the other day, "Do you know that until recently it 
has been in the back of my head that the cause of all these 
revolutions and disturbances in Mexico was the Americans 
themselves; that they have stirred up strife in order to get 
personal advantage to themselves?" 

"Why," I said to him, "have you forgotten the history of 
Mexico ; that the normal state of Mexico is revolution and in- 
ternal strife; that Mexico under Diaz was abnormal to the 
extent that there was law and order as there was security 
for life and property? Have you forgotten that before 
Diaz there were more than fifty-seven revolutions in fifty- 
seven years, and that since Diaz there had been eight so- 
called presidents in Mexico? How can you imagine that 
your fellow-countrymen could possibly be so malign as to 
act any such part and what motive would the Americans 
have for such conduct? What motive have they except to 
wish and hope for a condition of prosperity and peace in 
Mexico which will permit of their peaceful activities there?'* 

Another mistaken viewpoint inexplicable to one familiar 
with the facts is that concessions and concessionaires are at 
the root of the difficulty. If you will calamine the facts you 
will find that all foreign-held rights in Mexico have heert 
obtained by purchase from private owners with exceptions 
so slight as to be immaterial. But you may ash, "What is a 
concession in Mexico?" So far as it affects the Mexican 
problem, there is no such thing; we think of a concession as 
a grant by government of government property or rights at 
the expense of the public. It means no such thing in 
Mexico. There the term "concession" is applied indiscrim- 
inately to a charter such as is automatically granted in every 



State of the Union upon complying with certain simple 
prerequisites or a permit to build anything from a wharf 
to a railroad or a pipe line or a building. And while 
speaking of concessions, let me say as a lawyer, that I 
know nothing as to whether Mexico was or is priest ridden, 
but I do know from my own experience that Mexico has 
suffered and does suffer from being lawyer ridden. Every 
ordinary step in life, in order to be properly done, requires 
the guiding hand of a lawyer. 

There is still another mistaken viewpoint about Mexico 
and that is that there is an inherent hostility between Ameri- 
cans and Mexicans and thatj, owing in part at least to 
American manners j Americans cannot get along with Mexi- 
cans. I am willing to concede that American manners may 
be as bad on the surface as the manners of any other nation. 
But underneath we know that there is a feeling of humanity; 
there is a real kindliness and a real consideration. These 
things mean more in the long run than surface good man- 
ners, however desirable the latter may be. In Mexico I 
talked to men of long experience there, and I believe tha^ 
even in the difficult relation of employer and employee 
Americans get on well in Mexico. 

In one camp that I visited in the State of Vera Cruz, now 
protected by an armed guard against raids, I know that 
for nearly two years some five hundred Mexicans have 
worked side by side with a little group of perhaps a score 
of Americans, the Americans not permitted by Carranza's 
order to carry arms and relying solely upon their own 
courage and moral force. Yet there has been no instance 
of clash or disturbance. No writ ran in that camp. There 
were no courts, or judges or law officers to whom an appeal 
could be made. On the Gulf side a detachment of Carran- 
zistas would be going up the coast at the same time that 
on the lagoon side three miles away a detachment of Pelae- 
zistas would be marching the other way. There was every 
reason for disorder and chaos, but the camp was peaceful 

s 



except for the occasional outrages of Carranzista soldiers or 
outside bandits. 

There was a great deal of trouble in getting the pay- 
rolls to these camps in the oil fields. The Carranzistas 
offered to carry the payrolls. This offer was accepted by 
the Aguila Company and the payrolls went down under the 
escort of three hundred Carranzista soldiers. They should 
have arrived in two days, but as they did not arrive, it was 
necessary to borrow from a nearby camp the money to pay 
the men. They finally arrived after two weeks and the 
payroll was delivered, but the Carranzistas looted the camp 
and took everything loose and available. It is generally 
accepted that many of the Carranzista soldiers are convicts 
and even murderers who have been given the alternative of 
execution or service in the ranks. Be that as it may, my 
testimony is that Americans, without the backing of the 
ordinary processes of law and simply because they are 
brave, true, kindly men, have been able to retain the control 
and service of hundreds of Mexicans, who have remained 
loyal and faithful and whose working conditions have been 
immeasurably improved by these Americans. 

Then there is the wrong point of view toward the murders 
and outrages of Americans and the numerous other dis- 
turbances throughout Mexico. "Oh," you may say, "it is 
to be expected that these outrages and murders will occur 
because it is like any other border country. Conditions are 
pioneer conditions. You cannot expect law and order." 
But we must bear in mind that the civilization of Mexico 
is older than our own. After the turbulence of three score 
years of revolutions, Portforio Diaz was able to establish 
tranquillity so that, I am told, one could travel throughout 
Mexico with greater safety than in many parts of the 
United States. In the sense of border warfare it is not a 
new country. And there is no reason inherent in the subject 
matter why these numerous outrages and murders of Amer- 
icans should take place. I travelled through the most im- 

6 



portant fields of Tamaulipas and Vera Cruz, further south 
than the Tuxpam River and met the Americans there. 
Almost all were young men and almost all had been in the 
service here or overseas. My spirit rejoiced within me 
when I saw such splendid young American manhood. There 
is nowhere, I venture to say, a finer lot of young men than 
along the Gulf and the Tamiahua lagoon, on the Tuxpam 
River and the Tancochin River. And many of these men 
who did not see service either overseas or at home faced 
bravely the nameless dread of death, saw their companions 
shot down, disarmed, and yet stayed at their posts of danger 
in the time of their country's need. These men gave true 
patriotic service "that the flag of freedom might still float 
on the seven seas and that justice might not perish from 
the earth." 

In all possible differences of opinion about the Mexican 
problem, can we not find some common ground upon which 
all fair-minded, just Americans may stand? Someone has 
said that the greatest difficulty in securing justice from the 
administration in a certain capitol city was to get the facts 
to the people who ought to know the facts. Perhaps I can 
best tell you such important facts as are within my knowl- 
edge by saying something of my own recent trip to Mexico. 

How many of you know that Carranza stabled his horses 
in the Cathedrals and principal churches in Vera Cruz and 
other cities and that a delegation composed in part of 
American women visited Carranza in person and protested 
ag3,inst the impious outrage? And Carranza sat mute and 
the horses were still stabled in the holy place. "Oh," some 
of you may say, "Cromwell did the like at Ely" and so he 
did — to his everlasting disgrace. It was a foul thing then. 
If possible, it is a fouler thing now that in the twentieth 
century a man is permitted to sit in the seat of power and be 
recognized by the Government of this Christian country, 
who could be guilty of such impiousness. They were Catho- 
lic Cathedrals and I am no Roman Catholic, but as a 



Christian man I shall never fail to resent this unspeakable 
sin and outrage. 

I will not harrow your feelings by recounting the nu- 
merous outrages to and murders of nuns and priests. The 
record, I believe, is 150 priests in Mexico City alone. One 
cannot go fully into the facts without seeing that this was 
in pursuance of a deliberate policy of wholesale murder 
and rape, a policy which, as much as the stabling of the 
horses in the Cathedral, must have had the personal ap- 
proval of Carranza himself. 

You may have seen the murder Tnap of Mexico which I 
hold in my hands. Three hundred and eighty-three deaths 
of Americans in Carranza s time down to August 21, 1919. 
Any lawless or evil-minded person in Mexico since Car- 
ranza' s time has known and acted as if he could kill Ameri- 
cans with impunity. Not only is there no record of any 
German killed in Mexico in Carranza s time^ hut there is no 
record of justice being meted out to any murderer of an 
American in Mexico in Carranza s time. It was a deliberate 
intent, expressed by Carranza and by Carranza s followers, 
to drive the hated Gringoes from the country. This is an 
important fact. 

Carranza was and is rabidly pro-German, — the willing 
friend of and co-plotter with a group of scoundrels so filthy 
as to be incapable of description within parliamentary limits. 

And just one word here: I had and have contempt and 
loathing for the assassins of the women and children on the 
Lusitania. But such contempt and loathing is as zero to 
infinity compared to my contempt and loathing for those 
who justified, who palliated that vile crime. In the same 
way I had and have contempt and loathing for Carranza s 
crimes against Americans, against civilization, against Re- 
ligion. But such contempt and loathing is as zero to infinity 
compared to the contempt and loathing we should feel for 
those malignant marplots or mischievous morons who seek 
to excuse such infamy. 



Yes! Carranza was and is rabidly pro-German. This is 
an important fact. But it is not the most important fact 
about Mexico. Let me first recount, however, a few other 
facts of less tremendous importance. 

Mexico has been for nine years in the throes of civil war 
and bandits and banditry have flourished. In Mexico 
''bandit" is a word of widespread significance. In Court 
circles in Mexico City it means any Mexican who by force 
is expressing his disapproval of the Carranza regime. 

We went through the Chijol canals a place where robbers 
equipped with a careful inventory of the effects of those 
who have just gone through the Carranza customs at Tam- 
picOj sometimes lie in wait and rob and murder Americans 
in launches traveling down to the oil fields. 

We heard of the habits of the Santa Marian Indians to 
treat their victims to a steak cut from their own abdomens, 
and of the Yaquis to shave the feet of their captives before 
starting their barefoot race. And we also learned of the 
disagreeable habit of dismembering Americans held for ran- 
som. The practice is told of by Mr. Chamberlain, the late 
Consul General at Mexico City, in his book, "Not All the 
King's Horses." The difficulty is not merely the incon- 
venience of the loss of a finger, a thumb or an ear, but the 
operation is not aseptically performed, blood poisoning and 
gangrene ensue and. ******** May we 
not strongly advocate that the bandits be urged to adopt a 
rule discountenancing such a practice, or at least that they 
be held to a "strict accountability?" 

Yes ! Mexico has been and is being torn by civil war and 
infested by bandits. This is an important fact about Mexico. 
But it is not the most important fact. 

Traveling down from Monterey in the State of Nuevo 
Leon to Tampico, I talked with a Mexican who was a 
planter in a small way. I asked him about the bandits or 
rebels. He said that after a raid if complaint is made to 
the Carranzistas they wait for 24 hours to give the rebels 

9 



plenty of time to get away and then they come in and loot 
whatever is left. He said the names and the hiding-out 
places were well known and made the charge^ which I heard 
repeated again and again with strong attendant circumstan- 
tial evidence^ that Carranza did not want to restore order 
because it meant the end of his personal power. So long 
as disorder continues there is a reason for postponing the 
elections and continuing such despotic power as Carranza 
now possesses. 

While in Mexico City a few weeks the capitol was 
visited by General Santos, of Nuevo Leon, and his picture 
appeared in the papers. I remembered the name. My 
Mexican friend going down from Monterey had told me all 
about him. An election had recently taken place in Mon- 
terey. Santos, the Carranza General, was a candidate. 
The election itself, "mirabile dictu," was conducted hon- 
estly. The candidate against Santos was named Garcia. 
So violent was the feeling against Carranza that Garcia 
received upwards of 15,000 votes. Santos could muster 
with all his military power a meagre 400 votes, but Santos 
had his soldiers, and his soldiers had rifles and cartridges, 
and my Mexican friend told me Carranza chose Santos 
because he knew Santos would start a revolution if he 
were not declared elected. Garcia being an inoffensive 
prosperous business man, with houses in various towns of 
Nuevo Leon, was not expected to, and did not, start a 
revolution. 

Louis Cabrera, Carranza's Minister of Hacienda, was 
arguing to postpone elections next year and keep Carranza 
in power indefinitely; also to continue the indefinite powers 
of Carranza over the treasury. 

I read: 

"Cabrera was quoted as saying that two 
Governors and two Legislatures were now 
functioning in Tabasco and San Luis Potosi, 

10 



while in Guanajuato, Nuevo Leon and Coa- 
huila candidates had been imposed against the 
indicated choice of the people." 

Perhaps Louis Cabrera overstated his case in attempting 
to prove his Chief's point. 

You may ask if the people of Mexico are hostile to Car- 
ranza why do they not throw off his power? 

First, perhaps because they are revolutionary weary, and 

Secondly, because they cannot get arms and ammunition. 

As a practical matter recognition by the United States 
meant that the United States put Carranza in power and 
continued recognition by the United States may mean his 
continuance in power until one of his Generals becomes so 
strong that he believes he can seize the throne. 

Yes! The present rule in Mexico is that of a military 
despotism. This is an important fact. But it is not the 
most important fact about Mexico. 

Bolshevism. No survey of Mexico would be complete 
which omitted a word about Bolshevism. Emma Goldman 
was recently quoted as saying: 

"When as Trotzky's Ambassador I come 
back to Washington and ride up to the White 
House steps in my limousine and step from 
my limousine, you will see bowing and scrap- 
ing all the dirty little officials who are hound- 
ing me now." 
Emma Goldman reminds me of Mexico and the Mexican 
Constitution, because of the remark of a distinguished 
lawyer, Mr. Surges, before the American Bar Associations 

"I have no extraneous evidence that the 
Carranza Constitution of 1917 was framed by 
Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, 
but I am convinced that there is nothing in 

11 



that document to give offense to those militant 
champions of a liberty unregulated by law." 

You say are we not far afield from Meixco? No. The 
XJtopia alike of Trotzhy and Carranza is a despotism of 
force under the guise of a great popular reform. 

A constitution is a dull subject, but this one of 1917 has 
features which would be droll if the whole fabric of society 
were not threatened by the poison of German socialism 
and Marxism. 

One cannot grasp the full significance of events in Mexico 
unless one knows the radicalism of the group there in con- 
trol — in control by virtue not of the will of the people, 
but vi et armis. 

Carranza for nearly four years has taken the income 
of the foreign-owned railroads and other utilities after con- 
fiscating out and out the assets of the hanks ^ under the guise 
of receivership, the result of forced loans to him and includes 
in his boasted aggregate of revenues of 160,000,000 pesos 
a year, the income of the public utilities, without any pay- 
ment of bond interest or dividend to the stockholders — not 
even the payment of a centavo of interest on the national 
.debt. He boldly presses forward his project for the con- 
fiscation of foreign-owned properties in defiance of the 
protests of the civilized world. He has no shadow of ex- 
cuse for his continued seizures of the railroad revenues. He 
does set up a miserable technicality in defence of his claim 
of right to take the petroleum properties of foreigners — a 
technicality that by a Constitution new rules of property 
may be set up which will sweep away prior absolute rights 
of foreigners without pretense of compensation. And this 
in the teeth of the contrary assurance given at the time of 
Carranza's recognition. All these are evidences of Bol- 
shevism which has been defined by a clever Teooan as "Czar- 
ism in overalls," and the essence of whose creed is to kill 
those who have, that their belongings may be possessed. 

12 



One would suppose that there could be no more important 
fact about Mexico than that an experiment in Bolshevism 
is being set up and recognized and permitted in the Western 
Hemisphere. But it is not the most important fact about 
Mexico. 

The most important fact about Mexico is that the Mexi- 
can people themselves, as the result of nine years of blood 
and desolation, are in a state of hopeless misery. With all 
the wrongs that have been done to Americans — and the con- 
fiscation, accomplished and under way is but an incident in 
a program of anti-foreign Bolshevism — and with all the 
resentment we must feel against Carranza and those who 
support and defend him, we must not feel rancor about the 
Mexican people. We, the people of the United States, 
placed Carranza in power by according him recognition; 
and the tens of thousands of ruined Americans and our 
hundreds of American dead are as nothing to the wrongs 
and sufferings of the Mexican people. A million dead, 
hundreds of thousands widows and orphans. And no hope 
for the future. A military despotism which gives up each 
state or territory to the absolute power of the general in 
command. The people oppressed beyond belief, while the 
Generals wax rich. In a land of untold riches, the people 
in poverty and misery, beggars of all ages, down to the 
small boys and girls with their pitiful "Por amor de Madre 
de Dios, Senor." The hopeless misery of the Mexican 
people is the most important fact about Mexico. 

And now what is the most important thing for us ? This : 
That in the future America shall realize and do her full 
duty, in mercy and righteousness and justice and honor; 
that there may be sympathy with, not rancor against, the 
Mexican people who are worthy of our help, almost all of 
them, but millions of whom have been ruthlessly, needlessly 
sacrificed in the unending struggles for supremacy and 
power. Our pity should go out to widows and orphans 
living in squalor and shame; to the children growing up 

13 



with no education except in vice and beggary. Have you 
€ver seen a small boy asleep on a door step in the bitter 
€old of that high plateau, his small frozen legs sticking out 
from his thin worn serape? Can you forget that there will 
be 5,000 and more such in Mexico City huddling together 
on door steps tonight? No matter what our Government 
does, at least we can do something to help these innocent 
wronged ones. Our hearts and sympathy went out to Bel- 
gium, ground beneath the heel of the invader. Germany 
was a foreign foe, but civil war and oppression are no less 
bitter than the struggles of peoples. And our sympathy 
and help, actual, substantial help in the building of homes 
and hospitals, and in the furnishing of food and clothing 
and schools — for schools have for years been neglected — 
these are some of the things that we can do for Mexico. 

And we can think straight about Mexico. During the 
last war it was the duty of every man to shoot straight and 
think straight. It will always be our duty as free, self-gov- 
erning Americans to think straight, get the facts, and form 
wise, sane judgments. Unaffected by cynicism or senti- 
mentality, let us "see life steadily and see it whole." Let 
us not be led away by prejudice against either foreigners 
or our fellow-citizens. Let us not assume without proof 
that Americans in foreign lands forget all traditions of 
decency or are debarred by the mere fact of their enterprise 
from the consideration and regard and protection of their 
fellow-citizens. There is a curious poison gas of Bolshevism 
abroad in the land anent business and business-men. It is 
intangible, but its deadly implication is that business men 
are not to be trusted in business affairs and that the more 
successful and efficient they are the less they are to be 
trusted. For common sense and charity alike, give me the 
big-hearted man of business with wide experience and broad 
vision. Oh, for a Lincoln to preach again the modern gos- 
pel of labor and the dignity of labor and the right of labor 
to protection, whether the labor be of the hand or of the 

14 



brain. We shall never orient ourselves correctly toward 
the problem of Mexico until we believe in our American 
business men there — many of them pioneers — all of them 
brave men with American ideals, whose leaven has already 
lightened the lump and raised the level of labor throughout 
parts of Mexico. Do you know that Mr. Jenkins built and 
endowed a hospital in Puebla? Do you know that the oil 
companies in Vera Cruz have equipped and are equipping 
their plants and camps with schools and hospitals for 
Mexicans? It seems odd that it should be necessary to 
plead for common ordinary justice for fellow- Americans 
with spirit and enterprise enough to venture into other lands 
that America may play its proper part in the affairs of the 
world. Yet there is insidious propaganda which impliedly 
or directly imputes sinister motives and wrong acts to Amer- 
icans wholly innocent J propaganda which some seize eagerly 
^s an excuse for not accepting an uncomfortable truth and 
others use as an anodyne to prevent one's conscience from^ 
assuming a disagreeable duty. 

If all good people could get together with full knowl- 
edge of the facts on a platform of righteousness and jus- 
tice and honor, the future of Mexico and the future of 
America would be secured. America does not desire, and, 
please God, will never take one inch of territory from 
Mexico. There is a point of view, however, toward life 
which seems to me that of mental and moral strabismus, 
and that is the point of view of the pacifists, the men or 
women who put peace above justice and righteousness and 
honor. There be such who talk about Mexico. One said 
the other day, "How many boys would you be wiUing 
to have killed to protect Americans in Mexico and Amer- 
ican rights in Mexico?" It is impossible to answer a point 
of view like that. How many policemen are we willing 
to have killed in order to quell a riot? How many fire- 
men are we willing to have killed in order to quell a con- 
flagration? How many of our boys were we willing to 

15 



J.LI 



LIDKHKT Ul- UUnUKt;>d 




015 833 617 0^ 

have killed in order that the flags of freedom might still 
float on the seven seas? Some pacifist friends of mine 
talked just the same way about protecting American rights 
prior to and after April 6th, 1917. No one believes in 
war. No one but a coward and cur and a traitor to 
America and American ideals will advocate a long-con- 
tinued and unjust peace. How many boys would we have 
killed? It is a bitter and startling question. Personally, 
my bedrock belief is, that none need be killed and that 
American rights can be protected fully if we are willing 
to and ready to make the sacrifice to protect American 
rights and if the rest of the world knows and believes that 
we are. But as has been said, it is not so important that 
a man shall continue to live as that he shall have ideals 
for which he is willing to die. If American lives are taken; 
if American women are dishonored; if American rights 
are persistently disregarded so that peace may no longer 
continue in righteousness and justice and honor, will not 
the question for us be not, "Have you kept the peace?" but 
*'Have j^ou kept the faith?" 



16 



